Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Jul. 03, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Note 5. Legal Proceedings When the Company becomes aware of a claim or potential claim, the Company assesses the likelihood of any loss or exposure. The Company discloses information regarding each material claim where the likelihood of a loss contingency is probable or reasonably possible. If a loss contingency is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records an accrual for the loss. In such cases, there may be an exposure to potential loss in excess of the amount accrued. Where a loss is not probable but is reasonably possible or where a loss in excess of the amount accrued is reasonably possible, the Company discloses an estimate of the amount of the loss or range of possible losses for the claim if a reasonable estimate can be made, unless the amount of such reasonably possible losses is not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Unless otherwise stated below, for each of the matters described below, the Company has either recorded an accrual for losses that are probable and reasonably estimable or has determined that, while a loss is reasonably possible (including potential losses in excess of the amounts accrued by the Company), a reasonable estimate of the amount of loss or range of possible losses with respect to the claim or in excess of amounts already accrued by the Company cannot be made. Solely for purposes of this note, “WD” refers to Western Digital Corporation or one or more of its subsidiaries excluding HGST prior to the closing of the Company's acquisition of HGST on March 8, 2012 (the "HGST Closing Date"). HGST refers to Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Holdings Pte. Ltd. or one or more of its subsidiaries as of the HGST Closing Date, and “the Company” refers to Western Digital Corporation and all of its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis including HGST. Intellectual Property Litigation On June 18, 2008, plaintiff Convolve, Inc. (“Convolve”) filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Texas against WD, HGST, and two other companies alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,314,473 and 4,916,635. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. On October 10, 2008, Convolve amended its complaint to allege infringement of only the ‘473 patent. The ‘473 patent allegedly relates to interface technology to select between certain modes of a disk drive’s operations relating to speed and noise. A trial in the matter began on July 18, 2011 and concluded on July 26, 2011 with a verdict against WD and HGST in an amount that is not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows, for which the Company previously recorded an accrual. WD and HGST filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict. On January 17, 2014 and February 11, 2015, the Court denied WD’s and HGST’s post-trial motions. On March 13, 2015, WD and HGST filed Notices of Appeal with the United States District Court for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). On April 16, 2015, Convolve filed a motion for reconsideration of the final judgment. On May 5, 2015, the Federal Circuit deactivated the appeal pending the Court’s decision on reconsideration. WD and HGST intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously in this matter. On March 24, 2014, plaintiff Steven F. Reiber (“Reiber”) filed a complaint in the Eastern District of California against the Company, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,124,927 and 7,389,905. On September 16, 2014, Reiber filed an amended complaint in the Eastern District of California against the Company alleging infringement of three additional patents-U.S. Patent Nos. 6,935,548, 6,651,864, and 6,354,479. Reiber alleged that WD products (including HDD heads, head gimbal assemblies, head stack assemblies and SSDs) infringed these patents based on the allegation that the manufacturing of these products involves the use of certain bonding tools (e.g., wire-bonding tips, capillary tips, and flip-chip handling tools) that have electrically “dissipative” properties, and which are used when bonding components, such as leads, wires and flip chips. On June 4, 2015, the parties reached a settlement agreement for an amount that is not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. On July 17, 2015, the Court dismissed the action against the Company with prejudice. The matter is now resolved. Seagate Matter In October 2006, Seagate Technology LLC ("Seagate") brought an action against the Company and a now former employee, alleging misappropriation of confidential information and trade secrets. In January 2012, an arbitrator issued a final award against the Company, including pre-award interest, of $630.4 million. The matter was appealed and, on October 8, 2014, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the arbitrator’s award. On October 14, 2014, the Company paid Seagate $773.4 million to satisfy the full amount of the final arbitration award plus interest accrued through October 2014. This amount was paid by one of the Company’s foreign subsidiaries using cash held outside of the United States. Seagate disputes the method the Company used for calculating post-award interest and contends that the Company owes Seagate approximately $29 million in additional interest. The Company denies Seagate’s contention and believes it calculated interest properly in accordance with the arbitration award. On November 12, 2014, the Company filed a motion with the District Court seeking an order declaring that WD has paid to Seagate all amounts due under the arbitration award, including all pre-award and post-award interest, and all costs and disbursements assessed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court. On December 23, 2014, Seagate filed a cross-motion seeking entry of judgment in the amount of $29 million, plus daily interest from October 15, 2014 until the date any judgment is paid. Both parties’ motions were fully briefed and, on January 9, 2015, the District Court heard oral argument on both motions. On April 7, 2015, the District Court granted the Company’s motion and declared that all amounts due and owing from the Company to Seagate have been paid, and a corresponding judgment was entered on April 8, 2015. On May 6, 2015, Seagate appealed the decision and judgment to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The matter has been fully briefed before the Minnesota Court of Appeals but a date for oral argument has not been set. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Other Matters On December 22, 2011, the German Central Organization for Private Copying Rights (Zentralstelle für private Überspielungsrechte), (“ZPÜ”), an organization consisting of several copyright collecting societies, instituted arbitration proceedings against Western Digital's German subsidiary ("WD Germany") before the Copyright Arbitration Board (“CAB”) claiming copyright levies for multimedia hard drives, external hard drives and network hard drives sold or introduced into commerce in Germany by WD Germany from January 2008 through December 2010. The CAB, which was required to issue a settlement proposal within one year of the initiation of the action, failed to do so and requested the parties consent to continue the deadline. WD Germany declined to provide consent and, on February 1, 2013, WD Germany filed a declaratory relief action against ZPÜ in the Higher Regional Court of Munich (the “Higher Court”), seeking an order from the court to determine the copyright levy issue. On May 21, 2013, ZPÜ filed a counter-claim against WD Germany with the Higher Court, seeking copyright levies for multimedia hard drives, external hard drives and network hard drives (collectively, "Covered Products") sold or introduced into commerce from January 2008 through December 2010 based on tariffs published by ZPÜ on November 3, 2011. On May 22, 2014, oral argument on the pleadings occurred. On January 15, 2015, the Higher Court ruled in favor of ZPÜ. In its ruling, the Higher Court declared that WD Germany must pay certain levies on certain WD products which it sold in Germany between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010. The judgment specifies levy amounts on certain WD products sold from 2008 to 2010 and directs WD Germany to provide applicable sales data to the ZPÜ. The exact amount of the judgment has not been determined. ZPÜ and WD Germany filed appeals with the German Federal Court of Justice on February 18 and February 20, 2015. WD intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. On December 11, 2014, ZPÜ submitted a pleading to the CAB seeking copyright levies for multimedia hard drives, external hard drives and network hard drives sold or introduced into commerce in Germany by WD Germany from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013. WD intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. The Company has recorded an accrual for German copyright levies in an amount that is not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. It is reasonably possible that the Company may incur losses totaling up to $95 million, including the amounts accrued. In the normal course of business, the Company is subject to other legal proceedings, lawsuits and other claims. Although the ultimate aggregate amount of probable monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these other matters is subject to many uncertainties and is therefore not predictable with assurance, management believes that any monetary liability or financial impact to the Company from these other matters, individually and in the aggregate, would not be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, there can be no assurance with respect to such result, and monetary liability or financial impact to the Company from these other matters could differ materially from those projected.

Note 5. Legal Proceedings

When the Company becomes aware of a claim or potential claim, the Company assesses the likelihood of any loss or exposure. The Company discloses information regarding each material claim where the likelihood of a loss contingency is probable or reasonably possible. If a loss contingency is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records an accrual for the loss. In such cases, there may be an exposure to potential loss in excess of the amount accrued. Where a loss is not probable but is reasonably possible or where a loss in excess of the amount accrued is reasonably possible, the Company discloses an estimate of the amount of the loss or range of possible losses for the claim if a reasonable estimate can be made, unless the amount of such reasonably possible losses is not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Unless otherwise stated below, for each of the matters described below, the Company has either recorded an accrual for losses that are probable and reasonably estimable or has determined that, while a loss is reasonably possible (including potential losses in excess of the amounts accrued by the Company), a reasonable estimate of the amount of loss or range of possible losses with respect to the claim or in excess of amounts already accrued by the Company cannot be made.

Solely for purposes of this note, “WD” refers to Western Digital Corporation or one or more of its subsidiaries excluding HGST prior to the closing of the Company's acquisition of HGST on March 8, 2012 (the "HGST Closing Date"). HGST refers to Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Holdings Pte. Ltd. or one or more of its subsidiaries as of the HGST Closing Date, and “the Company” refers to Western Digital Corporation and all of its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis including HGST.

Intellectual Property Litigation

On June 18, 2008, plaintiff Convolve, Inc. (“Convolve”) filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Texas against WD, HGST, and two other companies alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,314,473 and 4,916,635. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. On October 10, 2008, Convolve amended its complaint to allege infringement of only the ‘473 patent. The ‘473 patent allegedly relates to interface technology to select between certain modes of a disk drive’s operations relating to speed and noise. A trial in the matter began on July 18, 2011 and concluded on July 26, 2011 with a verdict against WD and HGST in an amount that is not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows, for which the Company previously recorded an accrual. WD and HGST filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict. On January 17, 2014 and February 11, 2015, the Court denied WD’s and HGST’s post-trial motions. On March 13, 2015, WD and HGST filed Notices of Appeal with the United States District Court for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”). On April 16, 2015, Convolve filed a motion for reconsideration of the final judgment. On May 5, 2015, the Federal Circuit deactivated the appeal pending the Court’s decision on reconsideration. WD and HGST intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously in this matter.

On March 24, 2014, plaintiff Steven F. Reiber (“Reiber”) filed a complaint in the Eastern District of California against the Company, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,124,927 and 7,389,905. On September 16, 2014, Reiber filed an amended complaint in the Eastern District of California against the Company alleging infringement of three additional patents-U.S. Patent Nos. 6,935,548, 6,651,864, and 6,354,479. Reiber alleged that WD products (including HDD heads, head gimbal assemblies, head stack assemblies and SSDs) infringed these patents based on the allegation that the manufacturing of these products involves the use of certain bonding tools (e.g., wire-bonding tips, capillary tips, and flip-chip handling tools) that have electrically “dissipative” properties, and which are used when bonding components, such as leads, wires and flip chips. On June 4, 2015, the parties reached a settlement agreement for an amount that is not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. On July 17, 2015, the Court dismissed the action against the Company with prejudice. The matter is now resolved.

Seagate Matter

In October 2006, Seagate Technology LLC ("Seagate") brought an action against the Company and a now former employee, alleging misappropriation of confidential information and trade secrets. In January 2012, an arbitrator issued a final award against the Company, including pre-award interest, of $630.4 million. The matter was appealed and, on October 8, 2014, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the arbitrator’s award. On October 14, 2014, the Company paid Seagate $773.4 million to satisfy the full amount of the final arbitration award plus interest accrued through October 2014. This amount was paid by one of the Company’s foreign subsidiaries using cash held outside of the United States.

Seagate disputes the method the Company used for calculating post-award interest and contends that the Company owes Seagate approximately $29 million in additional interest. The Company denies Seagate’s contention and believes it calculated interest properly in accordance with the arbitration award. On November 12, 2014, the Company filed a motion with the District Court seeking an order declaring that WD has paid to Seagate all amounts due under the arbitration award, including all pre-award and post-award interest, and all costs and disbursements assessed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court. On December 23, 2014, Seagate filed a cross-motion seeking entry of judgment in the amount of $29 million, plus daily interest from October 15, 2014 until the date any judgment is paid. Both parties’ motions were fully briefed and, on January 9, 2015, the District Court heard oral argument on both motions. On April 7, 2015, the District Court granted the Company’s motion and declared that all amounts due and owing from the Company to Seagate have been paid, and a corresponding judgment was entered on April 8, 2015. On May 6, 2015, Seagate appealed the decision and judgment to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The matter has been fully briefed before the Minnesota Court of Appeals but a date for oral argument has not been set. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

Other Matters

On December 22, 2011, the German Central Organization for Private Copying Rights (Zentralstelle für private Überspielungsrechte), (“ZPÜ”), an organization consisting of several copyright collecting societies, instituted arbitration proceedings against Western Digital's German subsidiary ("WD Germany") before the Copyright Arbitration Board (“CAB”) claiming copyright levies for multimedia hard drives, external hard drives and network hard drives sold or introduced into commerce in Germany by WD Germany from January 2008 through December 2010. The CAB, which was required to issue a settlement proposal within one year of the initiation of the action, failed to do so and requested the parties consent to continue the deadline. WD Germany declined to provide consent and, on February 1, 2013, WD Germany filed a declaratory relief action against ZPÜ in the Higher Regional Court of Munich (the “Higher Court”), seeking an order from the court to determine the copyright levy issue. On May 21, 2013, ZPÜ filed a counter-claim against WD Germany with the Higher Court, seeking copyright levies for multimedia hard drives, external hard drives and network hard drives (collectively, "Covered Products") sold or introduced into commerce from January 2008 through December 2010 based on tariffs published by ZPÜ on November 3, 2011. On May 22, 2014, oral argument on the pleadings occurred. On January 15, 2015, the Higher Court ruled in favor of ZPÜ. In its ruling, the Higher Court declared that WD Germany must pay certain levies on certain WD products which it sold in Germany between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010. The judgment specifies levy amounts on certain WD products sold from 2008 to 2010 and directs WD Germany to provide applicable sales data to the ZPÜ. The exact amount of the judgment has not been determined. ZPÜ and WD Germany filed appeals with the German Federal Court of Justice on February 18 and February 20, 2015. WD intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

On December 11, 2014, ZPÜ submitted a pleading to the CAB seeking copyright levies for multimedia hard drives, external hard drives and network hard drives sold or introduced into commerce in Germany by WD Germany from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013. WD intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

The Company has recorded an accrual for German copyright levies in an amount that is not material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. It is reasonably possible that the Company may incur losses totaling up to $95 million, including the amounts accrued.

In the normal course of business, the Company is subject to other legal proceedings, lawsuits and other claims. Although the ultimate aggregate amount of probable monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these other matters is subject to many uncertainties and is therefore not predictable with assurance, management believes that any monetary liability or financial impact to the Company from these other matters, individually and in the aggregate, would not be material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, there can be no assurance with respect to such result, and monetary liability or financial impact to the Company from these other matters could differ materially from those projected.